Absence from FIR and delayed witness statements justify bail for female accused during prolonged trial.

On August 10, 2025, a dispute arose in Village Bagrail regarding the repair of a government bore-well pump by the deceased, Sarvedas Mahant.

In the evening, a group of villagers allegedly armed with sticks and iron rods attacked the house of the deceased, assaulting him, his wife (the complainant), and his son.

Sarvedas was dragged from his home and beaten severely, succumbing to his injuries later that night.

The applicant, Urmila Mahant, was arrested on August 22, 2025, for various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 103 (Murder).

While the applicant was not named in the initial FIR, she was subsequently named in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and in court testimony.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given her gender, her absence from the FIR, and the current progress of the trial?

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

The court also considered the weight of witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS), specifically looking at the effect of delayed statements on the prosecution's case.

Additionally, the court applied the principle that the duration of pretrial detention, the gender of the accused, and the likelihood of a protracted trial are significant factors in determining bail.

The court weighed the prosecution's objections—namely that the applicant was named by the deceased's wife and son in later statements and that a wooden stick was seized from her—against the applicant's defense.

The court observed that the applicant was notably absent from the initial FIR.

It further noted that the statements implicating her (under Section 161) were recorded on August 13, 2025, three days after the FIR was lodged.

Significant emphasis was placed on the applicant's status as a woman and the fact that she had been in custody since August 22, 2025.

Observing that only 4 out of 37 listed witnesses had been examined and that the FSL report remained awaited, the court concluded that the trial was unlikely to finish in the near future.

These procedural delays and the lack of immediate naming in the FIR tilted the balance in favor of the applicant.

The court ordered the applicant to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount.

The holding was based on the applicant’s gender, the delay in recording incriminating statements, her absence from the FIR, and the slow pace of the trial.

The applicant was directed to appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates until the disposal of the trial.